Khan

I think that probably was their biggest mistake where RH was concerned. Even if expansion potentially meant losing the team that had created the show and brought it its' initial acclaim and accolades, I also think the network might have been more inclined to save the show, rather than give up on it, which they did at a certain point before actually cancelling it.

I definitely think that (getting another Bill Bell creation) was the reason why they even let P&G take SFT to NBC. They might have thought dumping SFT would have been incentive enough for Bell; but, like you say, @kalbir, Y&R was such a mess after expanding to an hour that he still couldn't entertain the notion.

I'd have to agree with Agnes Nixon (and with Douglas Marland): if LOVING stood any chance at all of succeeding, it needed to be scheduled between AMC and OLTL. And I say that as someone who disliked LOVING and would have preferred RH getting that slot. (If I had had my druthers, LOVING would have been scheduled instead after GH with the hopes that its' youth-skewering cast might prove to be a draw for younger audiences coming home from school.)

GL: Dreaming Death and Infinity. In the mid-'80's, GL came after GH hard with plots that, even then, looked and felt out of place on a show that had been, for the most part, a very grounded and relatable show. Nevertheless, as a grade-schooler, I [!@#$%^&*] loved them for the suspense that they offered, as well as the fact that they seemed to tie in a great deal of the canvas.

THE DOCTORS was effectively dead before the decade began; and GENERATIONS and TEXAS shaped up to be total non-starters. And SFT - that poor show never stood a chance on NBC. It might have had its' old time slot back, but the competition was tougher; and, as I understand it, the clearances were lower, too, with local affiliates either running the show at other time slots (which defeated the purpose of switching networks) or not running it at all. Then, to add insult to injury, NBCD itself ends up being run by the same guy who cancelled SFT on CBS, making Brian Frons the man who'd cancel SFT twice! P&G really screwed the proverbial pooch on that one, lol. In retrospect, I think CAPITOL was doomed from the start on CBS. CBS should have been upfront with John Conboy: "Look, John, SFT's exit leaves us with a half-hour to fill. Bill's not ready to give us another show, but we don't want to give up that time to the local affiliates. So, yes, we're greenlighting CAPITOL, but it's with the understanding that it's gone if/when Bill's ready." After all, Michael Brockman pretty much told Claire Labine (and maybe Paul Rauch) the same thing when they pitched and developed their respective series ideas for CBS after CAPITOL's cancellation. If the network had apprised Conboy of their long-range plans - presuming, of course, that they didn't - then I imagine some events might have transpired differently. I think CAPITOL would have been more inclined to tell a finite story; and maybe Conboy would have stuck with a HW longer, too. As it is, short of CAPITOL cracking the top three, I don't think the show could've done anything that would've changed CBS' minds about its' future. CBS never saw CAPITOL as anything beyond a placeholder for Bell's next show (which, of course, was B&B); and IMO, that's awfully shady. Apparently, no one at the network ever looked at what she and Doug Marland were developing and said, "I dunno, guys, it's not a good sign when I can't even tell you what's the show ABOUT"? I mean, I think they made a valiant effort to describe the show and its' themes to the press before the premiere, but it all sounded extremely vague.

I agree. I understand the show and network's need to get viewers excited about THE CITY while, at the same time, allowing the new show to have an identity that was separate from what was essentially a failed one; but it's like what you said, @dc11786, about the emotional fallout from the murders that should have carried from one show to the next but didn't. The end of LOVING didn't give the survivors or the audience anything to build on for THE CITY.

Thanks, @JAS0N47, for everything you've done and are doing to compile these stats for us. It's cleared up many misconceptions we've held about the ratings about this-or-that show.

Another good suggestion, along with Margaret Colin. Of course, no matter who had succeeded Kate Mulgrew, good or bad or in-between, Kate's shoes would have been tough to fill. I feel sympathetic toward Kelli Maroney as well. At the end of the day, she was an actor, just doing the job she was being paid to do, and to the best of her ability, too. As far as I know, she didn't force herself on Labine & Mayer; ABC did. She might not have been the kind of actor or character that L&M had wanted on their show, but they didn't own it anymore, so ABC had the right to impose the kind of actors, characters and storylines that they felt would help the show connect better with their target demos. Again, it ain't Kelli's fault.

Both. No offense to Patricia Barry, who portrayed "Miss Sally," and who did a fine job, but I feel like Maree Cheatham would have better embodied someone who was a Southern dame with a very trashy reputation. Even now, I'm smiling at the thought of Cheatham, as Sally, sharing scenes with the likes of Larry Gates (H.B. Lewis), Jordan Clarke (Billy), Larkin Malloy (Kyle) and especially Kim Zimmer (Reva). Miss Sally hated Reva - she thought she was no damn good for her son, Kyle, even though the two women actually had a lot in common - so you can just imagine how a confrontation between Cheatham's Sally and KZ's Reva might go, lol. She probably did. Before she played Aunt Charlene or Stephanie, she was Marie Horton, DAYS' original heroine, and probably one of the most hapless, trying females ever to appear on soaps. I wasn't around for those years, but I can just imagine how trying it must've been for Maree to play Marie, who was always miserable and who couldn't catch a break if she had tried.

It is.

"One Stormy Night." Or, as I called it: "One Steamy Mess."

Correct. That's why it's CRUCIAL for Democrats to show up at the polls next election, as there are several swing states in contention. It won't be a cakewalk, but I think we can do it.

I agree with you, @MichaelGL, and with @beebs, too. GL didn't gain any new viewers under Pam Long's second go-round, but it didn't lose any either, and I think that was a major reason why P&G didn't feel the need to can her.

ICAM.

I agree, @Broderick. It might have made more sense to say that Alexis was back in order to reclaim her status in Blake's life (and bed). To me, that's a stronger line of action than "I'm back to irritate the [!@#$%^&*] out of you and your new wife." Then, when Blake spurns her for a second time, that's when Alexis could officially declare revenge. Because, seriously, what means did she have to destroy Blake's life that she could have used before then and didn't? Again, the producers aren't clear about that, because they don't really know. They just have her stirring up [!@#$%^&*] until they can figure out what to do with her - which they finally do when they hit upon the absurd notion of marrying her off to Blake's chief business rival, killing him off immediately afterward and having her assume control of his company, despite showing absolutely no business acumen up to that point. As I've said before, DYNASTY, in its' first season, wasn't a great show, but it was promising. If ABC had been more patient - maybe hire a stronger writing team, and figure out some way of salvaging the Blaisdel family (like recasting Lindsay with Heather Locklear) - DYNASTY could have, over time, become as solid and reliable as KL.

David Jacobs said the same thing about his own failed soap, "Berrenger's." IIRC, he warned NBC that starting off with heavily serialized stories would be a mistake, because the audience didn't know them enough yet to follow them every week. DALLAS, FC and KL all began with self-contained episodes and gradually moved toward ongoing storylines for that very reason. However, NBC was desperate to have their own DALLAS or DYNASTY. Moreover, it's just impossible to build a weekly series of any kind around a cast of nineteen. Take out the commercials, and there's only so many minutes you have in each episode. You can have that large of a cast on a daytime series, of course, because they run five times per week, and not every character has to appear in every episode. But you don't have that sort of luxury in primetime. CBS really bit off more than they could chew there.

So, GENERATIONS started at the bottom and stayed there. NBC likely blamed the competition and part-African-American cast; I blame the cheap production values and piss-poor writing and acting. Either way, I don't understand those who insist the show was cancelled too soon when it was clear the show was DOA.

It's a shame "Beacon Hill" didn't take off with all that talent both on-screen and off.

"Michael" is about as real as my Canadian girlfriend.

She would've made for a better Miss Sally Gleason.

God bless John Forsythe, but as a last-minute substitution for George Peppard, he was all wrong for his role, too. He couldn't play Blake as he was created, and he wasn't all that interesting as a mellower, more honorable Blake either. His best work was as "Charlie," a voice on an intercom ("Kelly, Jill? You'll be going undercover as bikini models. And Sabrina, you'll be posing as a beer truck driver making deliveries at the compound. Best of luck, Angels. Now, off to my next orgy!")

No, I think the problem lay in the Pollocks' basic inability to create multi-dimensional characters. Abby Ewing (KNOTS LANDING) and Angela Channing (FALCON CREST) were fascinating antagonists, because their wants were tangible and relatable. Abby wanted to break free from middle-class mediocrity and compete in a man's world; Angela was determined to fulfill her grandfather's vision of making the winery the finest in Tuscany Valley. Even J.R. Ewing had a want - to best all his competitors and make his daddy's legacy his own - that lent itself to a variety of stories. But, as I've said before, all there really was to Alexis was her need to punish Blake, which gets old fast. (It's the same problem I had with the Pollock's work on THE DOCTORS. On both shows, the "good" characters were idiots, and the "bad" characters were bad "just because.") Plus, if I'm being totally honest, I don't think Alexis suffered all that much by being thrown out of the mansion. It's not as if Blake left her destitute, thereby forcing her to turn to prostitution on the streets of London or anything. Anders even mentions keeping up with all her exploits through the tabloids, which doesn't sound like suffering to me. And for all Alexis' talk about being denied the right to raise Fallon and Steven as their mother, I can't help but think back to what Jessica Tate told Corinne's real mom on an episode of "Soap": "All I know is that if anyone had taken my baby away from me, I would've moved heaven and earth to find her, and it wouldn't have taken twenty-three years!" If you truly cared about your kids' welfare, Alexis, why did you wait so damn long to come back into their lives? Why didn't you just tell Blake what he could do with all his threats and figure out some way to get them back, like Abby did when her ex-husband kidnapped Brian and Olivia on KNOTS? I think - and this is just what I think - we were supposed to root for Matthew Blaisdel (and for him and Krystle to be reunited) at the start. Blake, as originally envisioned, was a fabulously wealthy man who was also very ruthless and, at times, amoral. Matthew, on the other hand, was an anguished single dad, vying to make a name for himself in the cutthroat oil industry, while wrestling with his feelings for Krystle and his marital obligation to Claudia, who had returned from the sanitarium. On paper, it's a great contrast, and ideal fodder for storylines that could pit the two men against each other in various ways. However, what blew the whole thing was the casting. Bo Hopkins just does not work as a romantic lead.

All they had to say was that Dex died from the impact from the fall. That's it. Adding the twist that Alexis basically crushed him to death was unnecessary. If I had been Joan Collins, I would have protested: "Like hell you're gonna imply that my body weight killed him!" ICAM. Unfortunately, the only real motivation Alexis ever had was to get revenge on Blake. Which is fine, if the producers stick to their guns and write her off after four or six episodes (the actual number depending upon who you ask). But, they keep her on, which is a problem, because what do you do with her if she succeeds? What do you do with her if she doesn't? So, you keep pulling the proverbial rug out from under her, so she'll have to start all over again. It's so damn repetitive. Even Wile E. Coyote would say, "Girl, give it up!". Even Alexis' return seems pointless to me. She's back in Denver; she testifies against Blake at the trial; she moves into the cottage on his estate; she gets reacquainted with her children, who are, at best, feeling about weary toward her; she makes an enemy out of Krystle by causing the miscarriage; and she causes Anders and the rest of the staff to ally themselves with the new Mrs. Carrington (which, by the way, pretty much kills the show's original premise). She does all these things, stirs all these pots, but to what end? What is she hoping to achieve? Does she want Blake to take her back? Is she spying on the family on behalf of Blake's enemies or some tabloid for money? Is she dying of some disease and wants to make amends (but not before making Krystle's life hell just by sticking around)? What does the heffa want? It's as if they brought on Alexis just to goose the ratings and figured they'd come up with an actual game plan for her later. It's the same trick they also used on Dominique when she first appeared: "Who am I, you ask?" Yes, Dominique, that is what we are asking. Who the hell are you, and what the hell do you want?

I've often wondered if it was the other way around, with Y&R influencing DYNASTY, since Tom Trimble and Brock Broughton worked on both shows (and several other Aaron Spelling-produced shows, I think) as art director and set decorator, respectively.

I've seen "Monte Carlo" and "Sins," and for me, the problem with both miniseries is that Dame Joan is essentially playing Alexis again. Not that you would ever expect her to break out and portray a battered wife from the wrong side of the tracks, but I think most looked at "Monte Carlo" and "Sins" and asked, "Why should I watch these when I'm already getting the same thing every week on 'Dynasty'?" I know. And he was right to leave, too. I knew the reunion movie was going to blow mighty chunks when they had Krystle overhear one character tell another all about how Alexis and Dex went over the railing at the Carrington mansion and how she killed him when she turned in mid-air and landed on top of him. First of all, that didn't happen at the mansion; it happened at the Carlton. Second, writing out Dex that way was just crass, lol.